High court rules search OK in Sheboygan County case

MADISON – The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in a Sheboygan County case that asking a police officer, "you gotta warrant for that" is too ambiguous a statement for a prior consent to a search to be withdrawn.

The ruling came last week on an appeal of a case involving Derik Wantland and his brother from Random Lake in August 2010, when Wantland was pulled over for a defective brake light and a cracked windshield. The driver consented to allowing the Sheboygan County Sheriff's deputy search his car, but when the deputy reached for Wantland's briefcase, Wantland asked whether he had a warrant.

The deputy opened the briefcase anyway and found four narcotics pills inside. Wantland was charged with illegal drug possession. At trial, Wantlund failed to prevent a jury from hearing about the search, citing the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless searches during traffic stops.

The high court said the question was "too ambiguous to constitute a withdrawal of the driver's consent," for the search of the vehicle, and even too ambiguous to require the officer to ask clarifying questions.

In its decision, the majority affirmed the appeals court, which found that a reasonable person would not have interpreted the question as a withdrawal of his brother's consent to search the car.

Justice Annette Ziegler, writing for the majority, said other acts that would have clearly revoked consent would have included grabbing back the briefcase, or just saying no.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, dissented, however, and said the deputy should have doubted the brother's authority to consent to a search of the briefcase since it clearly belonged to Wantland.

Justice David Prosser wrote a separate dissent.

"The defendant's question may not have been perfect but it should have alerted the officer that the defendant was challenging a 'consent' search of his briefcase," Prosser wrote.